Toward a General Theory of Democratic Disgruntlement

Pollster Celinda Lake spoke to first, and perhaps most crucial point in
her email reply to me. "It’s easier to unify Republicans because mostly
they want to stop things. It’s harder to unify people when you want to do things." (emphasis added) Therein lies the broader asymmetry: Doing nothing is a single thing, whereas doing something implies many options.
And it is easier to build consensus around a “nothing” menu of 1 than
it is for a more variegated menu of limitless options of “something.”

This
is, I grant, not a particularly profound observation. Indeed, the idea
that the status quo ante enjoys an advantaged position is a core
assumption in social choice theories--especially as they apply to
American politics, what with its separation of powers and supermajority
rules and other constitutional and extra-constitutional rules and
strictures designed to slow progress. That reality remains true
regardless of the prevailing distribution of political attitudes, their
intensity, and so on: It is an ineluctable fact in American politics
it’s hard to do something, but even harder to reverse or undo or change
course once it’s done.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.